1.Chaya
Raphael complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “The minefield Prince William must tiptoe through today”
published on 27 June 2018.

2.The
article was a comment piece, in which the author set out the challenges which
Prince William would face on his official visit to Israel. It referred to
Palestinians being “forced to live in squalid conditions in Gaza and the West
Bank”. With reference to this situation,
the article said that “in an unequivocal breach of international law, Israeli
settlers have taken much of the best agricultural land, while depriving the
Palestinians of water supplies and, all too often – I have witnessed this for
myself – burning their olive groves and poisoning their wells”. The article
appeared online under the same headline in substantially the same format.

3.The
complainant said that the article was misleading in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy).
She had originally contacted the publication to dispute the article’s account
of Israeli settlers depriving Palestinians of water, and to disagree with what
she considered to be the repetition of an antisemitic trope in relation to the
poisoning of wells. In response to this, the publication had told her that the
author’s account of the poisoning of wells had been based on “previous reports
– including first-hand accounts”. She therefore considered that the article was
misleading because it stated that the author had “witnessed” this for himself,
when he had in fact relied on other sources.

4.The
publication denied any breach of the Code, and said that its columnist stood by
his account as set out in the article. It said that, on a visit to the West
Bank in 2011, the columnist had seen burning olive groves; this had been blamed
by Palestinians on settlers. Later, in early 2013, he saw a well, which locals
said was poisoned by settlers. The publication said that the columnist had no
reason to doubt the veracity of this information. It also referred to a number
of other articles and accounts concerning well-poisoning and the burning of
olive groves. The publication said that the columnist was entitled to share his
experiences, where they were clearly presented as such, and the complainant was
not in a position to dispute them. It also said that the columnist denied any
awareness of any antisemitic connotations regarding the issue of well
poisoning.

5.The
complainant said that the publication had conceded that the columnist had not
seen the acts referred to taking place; he had relied on locals’ accounts and
therefore on hearsay. She said that the article was therefore misleading.

6.The
publication said that the complaint centred on a detail which was a minor piece
of background information in a detailed column setting out the columnist’s
views on Prince William’s visit to Israel. The reference to the columnist
“witnessing” the events was not significant in that context.

Relevant Code
Provisions

7.Clause 1
(Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to
publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including
headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy,
misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due
prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving
IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to
significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to
editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture
and fact.

Findings of the Committee

8.The
article was clearly presented as a comment piece, in which the columnist gave
his views on the royal visit to Israel. As part of this account, the columnist
referenced allegations about the activity of Israeli settlers, stating that
they “have taken much of the best agricultural land, while depriving the
Palestinians of water supplies and, all too often – I have witnessed this for
myself – burning their olive groves and poisoning their wells”. It was not in
dispute that similar allegations had been made elsewhere, and the publication
had referred to several reports of such activities from sources that it
considered to be reputable. However, the crux of this complaint was whether it
was accurate for the article to state that the columnist had “witnessed” these
actions for himself. In response to the complaint, the columnist was able to
refer to specific visits to the West Bank where he had seen an olive grove
burning, and seen a well which he was told was poisoned; in both cases, he had
been told that Israeli settlers were responsible. The term “witness” has a
spectrum of meanings, and should not be interpreted so narrowly as to restrict
the rights of columnists, particularly those reporting from foreign countries,
to provide an account of their personal experiences. The Committee considered
that the claim to have “witnessed” could be interpreted broadly – to indicate
having seen the effects of the activity, and to have attributed the activity to
one party based on prior knowledge and verbal accounts. The complainant was
essentially questioning the columnist’s choice to believe the accounts he had
heard. In the context of a comment piece, which was clearly presented as such,
and where the columnist was able to refer to specific instances to support his
position, and to other reports of a similar nature, there was no failure to
take care over his claim to have “witnessed” the acts referred to, in breach of
Clause 1(i), and no significantly misleading impression was created that
required correction under Clause 1(ii).

This website uses cookies that provide necessary site functionality and improve your online experience. By continuing to use this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Our cookies notice provides more information about what cookies we use and how you can change them.